they are having the same the big and so meta-message for the chinese, the way you got here over the last 30 years is extraordinary. what they have accomplished, 600 million people out of poverty is amazing but a lot of it was on the back of selling their goods and services around the world. global demand is slow. we know that. newspaper or it has slowed down. they cannot grow from where they are at to where they want to be based on exporting their goods around the world. they need to have a stronger domestic economy which made -- means they need to develop a greater social safety net for their people and it means that they need to develop things like intellectual property protection

or commercial courts of law which they have asked us to help them with. they want serious help to create commercial courts of law. they created an intellectual property court because they recognize they are becoming amateur, innovative economy. they need these things. it will benefit american businesses but they are not doing it for that reason. they're going to -- trying to do this because it is for their own benefit. >> one area they talked about was a structured response to allegations of cyberattacks but the president had a pointed comment. is, our wordsow followed by actions? what is the timeframe, thinking about whether this works, our sanctions still on the table if it does not? >> there is not a precise timeframe. is the messagey

was clear. actions speak louder than words and what are you doing about this? where big an area progress was made, the bilateral investment treaty. that was struggling to make progress. leading up to this, significant progress was made in terms of the sectors of their economy that they are talking about opening up. is there more work to do? of course there is more work to do. that will be the story of our relationship with china throughout our lifetimes. there was progress made. we have to acknowledge where progress is made and we have to continue to work where there are challenges. they say they are very committed -- one of the biggest issues i have been talking with them about over this year has been intellectual property protection. they want and need technologies from around the world.

of their owne world-class technologies. they need this. they want to do it better. they have asked for our help. let's see what happens. we have to give that time. >> you're on your way to cuba. expect economic relationships between the u.s. and cuba to look like? >> we have to step back for a minute. without a55 years relationship with cuba. i think that the first thing we have to do aside from what has happened which is acknowledging that we have relations now is we have to build trust. to have an economic relationship, you have to trust each other and so part of my trip is a fact-finding mission and a relationship building mission. where does that leave? on the that is dependent

embargo legislation. there are -- there is a limit to how much the resident can do by executive order. we are trying to do what we can. the cubans want a more open relationship. we want a more open relationship with cuba. the pace of that is going to somewhat be dependent on two factors, cuba itself. their distribution systems are run entirely by the government so they could decide which of our goods and services they want distributed. the internet is -- has very limited capability and access. only 2 million of 11 million people have cell phones and there is a lot of infrastructure that needs to happen. we have to put this in perspective, having said that, i have seen since the president announcement significant changing of attitudes here in

the united states about the prospect of doing more business with cuba. there is a warming up to the idea throughout the country and so i am very excited about the potential. >> i want to ask you about someone you may have heard of, donald trump. isald cap has said china telling us, mexico is killing us, japan is killing us, everybody is beating us. we have incompetent people negotiating trade, we are losing money, we do not make good deals anymore. i know the best negotiators. henryike henry klatt -- kravitz. we have people that are great. would we get better trade deals? promoted carl icahn to treasury secretary. >> i missed that. that that is simplifying

the situation way to much. tpp. take our trade representative is working on trying to close at the transpacific partnership. there is a minute -- a ministerial going on. negotiating on the last open issues. hard. you have made a deal between two people. imagine trying to make a deal between 12 countries on 26 different chapters of issues. this is complicated. it is hard. it is not about one negotiator making the difference. it is about all those industries and all those countries having a point of view of what you are

agreeing to and how it will affect their equities. that is what you are trying to do. the president has set a goal of i want a high standard agreement. we're not making just any agreement. we're trying -- what we are create a set of what are the rules of the road for trade, what kinds of labor standards, intellectual property standards, what about e-commerce, what we have a free and open internet or not? these are issues that have not been addressed in one form or this is complicated. i think we have traffic negotiators, very tough. i will put them up against whoever donald trump suggests. >> thank you for joining us.

♪ you.ank deal, you went on meet the press and said you were in favor of it. mr. powell: at the time i studied it very carefully and the president had enough to override a veto but i felt we should do more than that so he could get 41 votes needed to keep it from going to a veto. i think it is a very good agreement. the problem was to stop the iranian program now. the verification system is perhaps the most aggressive i in armsn and working

control agreements. when you get a country like iran ,hat has 19,000 things running the centrifuges running and a plutonium processing facility, and they agree to cut the number of centrifuges by two thirds and to allow us to put cement into the bottom of that put tony him processing reactor, i thought this is a good deal. >> it was not just the better thing to do now that we have gotten in this position, this is something that was good. mr. powell: it seems to me it is good and not something we are stuck with. we had been working on this for nine years with our allies and if we had side -- we had said no, the allies were going for it anyway. the eu had agreed to it so it made no sense for us to back out. not only did make no sense to back out, it made lots of sense to go forward. people were complaining that it leads a path to uranian --

uranium enrichment open. the centrifuges will be in storage. iran would be starting from its lower point and 15 years of having some economic relations with the rest of the world will change the thinking of whoever after thege in iran ayatollah passes away. >> could we have a fundamental relationship with iran over the next 10 years in terms of an alliance of interest? usepowell: i would never the word alliance speaking of iran. i have been burned by iran in the past. i remember vividly the iran-contract controversy of some years ago so i have no illusions about the iranian machine -- regime. terrorism and causing mischief all over that part of the world is their operational strategy, but this was the problem that was most important to the world that they were getting closer to being able to have the fissile material for nuclear weapons and that is what i thought should

stop, that is what we worked nine years to stop and we did stop it. it is a good agreement and worth the american people. >> why did it become totally partisan? mr. powell: why does everything become totally partisan in washington, d.c.? but ont deeply involved balance, the president was able to succeed in getting the agreement in place and all of our allies were working with us and i think it does open up new opportunities but i am not saying it reflects a new total relationship with iran. let's just focus on this particular thing, make sure they do what they are expected and promised to do and put a verification regime in their that ensures that [indiscernible] i talked to the head of our intelligence community and talked to secretary moniz, and

they are confident they can verify what is happening. >> and you are confident. can smell uranium after has -- it has been in the sector. it has a signature you cannot hide. >> there are your republican friends who think very much like you. i would guess -- [indiscernible] i had that opinion but i will never suggest why they did it or did not? why did they did it or did not? mr. powell: ask them. you not ask me. i am basically still and entered officer, not a politician and i have been with nuclear weapons since i was a young captain when i learned how to use them. my first assignment was to guard an atomic cannon in germany when

i was a 21-year-old lieutenant. i was ready to call up nuclear weapons if the russian armies came and as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff ahead 20,000 nuclear weapons under my supervision. i know a lot about this. i know what nuclear weapons can do and anytime we can stop the program the way we stopped the that is athought valuable result of this agreement and i felt we had an obligation from my military experience and political and diplomatic experience to show my support. >> do we have a confluence of interests with iran in stopping isil? >> i think boast -- both of us have an interest in stopping isil. not just in syria, all over the place. i would not say that we are in alliance with iran over syria. perhaps it is the most complicated issue i have ever experienced and the problem right now is that we have to decide which is the first

priority. in the military we are taught to identify what is the main attack, would is the most important thing you have to do to solve the overall problem and there are other supporting attacks you might launch but there are face to operations you might undertake and right now i think the main attack but we have to focus on is defeating, isiloying, neutralizing and isis. that is the real threat to the region. i do not like mr. assad. i have worked with him, trying to work with him, i should say, and he is a pathological liar, he is a devil, i would like to see him leave. while we are hoping he will go away, let's think through once old role, what comes after him? do we know what will happen when a side does step down either voluntarily or he is pushed out? he represents not just the government but the aloe-ites --

th [inaudible] we have to think deeply. we have said we want him out, i want him out but i want isolate defeated as a first priority rather than focusing on assad. >> is the administration make a mistake emphasizing that assad must go? mr. powell: the administration has been modifying their language a little bit. saying not today and we will figure out a way and we will work with our friends and allies. i think he will eventually go but i think you have to be extremely careful. we thought we would knew what -- we knew what would happen in a be a, in egypt, interact, and we guessed wrong. in each one of these countries, the thing we have to consider is that there is some structure, some government that is functioning whether we like it's

former not, whether it is a dictatorship or not but there is a structure that is holding the society together and as we learned especially in libya, when you remove the top and the whole thing falls apart, there nothing underneath it, you get chaos and not only do get chaos, you have lots of people killed and you get lots of people leaving, fleeing as we see to get to a place that is safer and they have a better life. germany, the united kingdom. cited citing the pottery barn role. mr. powell: i did not say it, you said it. if you get your self-involved, if you break the government, cause it to come down by invading or other means, remember, you are now the government. you have a responsibility to take care of the people of that country. it got labeled.

pottery barn after fussing got a lot of advertising mileage out of it. >> let's get back into the foreign policy. we have violated that by going raq, syria, going to i afghanistan, libya and then leaving, not knowing what we are going to do. first of all was it a mistake to go into those places without a plan for owning it? mr. powell: there was a plan, the execution may have been weak in some of them but the reality is we went into iraq and afghanistan and we stayed long enough to create a government but the governments have turned out to be not as successful as we thought they might be. mr. powell: should we not have? i do not do retrospective very well. what is the point of it?

i have been doing this for years. we went to the u.n. on iraq because the u.n. was the offended party and we got a resolution. we could have avoided that had met thehussein standards. >> would george to be bush have been satisfied leaving saddam hussein in power? mr. powell: in my conversation with the president at the time he made it clear that if we were satisfied on that point, undoubtedly satisfied, he would not have the rationale to go in and conduct in beijing and it might have been ugly but saddam hussein may have stayed in place. nevertheless he felt it was necessary for them a based on the intelligence we had about those weapons, he thought it was in the interest of the world in the absence of that kind of agreement that an invasion was appropriate. i supported him in that.

we tried the u.n. that didn't work. our greatest disappointment was we did not do it well. we made strategic mistakes. the president was told for months we were going to preserve the iraqi army and not 'athstablish all of the ba positions, and then all of a sudden, one morning it happened. chaos and suit. there were other mistakes that were made. i am a great believer in my own doctrine, the powell doctrine, even though it's not an army doctrine. it's just something i made up one day. [laughter] secretary powell: a newspaper, "the washington post" called it that. it's nice to have a doctrine named after you. it says when you start out something, make sure you have enough force in place to have a decisive outcome.

we had a decisive outcome in baghdad, but we forgot that the war was not over. there was still total disa rray within society. that is when we should have had the surge. we should have put the necessary force in 2003. host: didn't secretary rumsfeld say that we didn't need that force? secretary powell: that was his view. host: he was incorrect. [laughter] apply toons do you syria now? secretary powell: i don't know how the syrian thing is going to turn out. of a great advocate airpower. i'm also an infantry officer. to play.has a role while it is playing that role, it is causing civilian casualties and destroying the infrastructure of the city.

if i'm living in mclean and they start bombing in falls church, i'm leaving mclean as well. you have to understand that airpower can be a very blunt instruments and it causes collateral damage, and not just the killing of innocent civilians. but what it does to the cities, to the water plants, to the oil facilities, it really does destroy a lot of property. ." isis is in movement. yourselves not make that readily available to be hit by air power. you will notice in kunduz, the city that has fallen in northern afghanistan to the taliban, they are not letting people leave the city. wonder why. they are hostage now.

they can't be bombed because they've got the citizens. syria, putinack to has been saying some things, hey, we need to get a coalition together, we need to hold the à wite factionala together. secretary powell: secretary kerry is having talks with them. i have always been willing to talk to people. people i like, people i do not like. large countries, small countries. that is the strength of the american system. not to go around and brad, say we are exceptional. everybody knows that. we don't have to brag. with constraints and humbled us on our part, till to everybody in the world who wants to talk to us. we don't have to show off. they know what we can do. host: what would you do if you

were secretary of state? secretary powell: if i were secretary of state -- and i know sergei very, very well -- i would talk to sergei. we not run into each other flying airplanes? how do we stop isil's advance? russians have also said they do not want to put troops on the ground. host: and you don't have to keep walking back once a side does take them -- assad does take them. secretary powell: we should not be surprised that the russians, who have had an interest in syria for 50 years, who have a naval base there, who have been d from the assa beginning of this conflict, along with the arabians, we should not be surprised that they raised the bid a little bit by putting in airplanes and troops.

he did not want to see this regime collapse. one thing that is important to understand is that the regime has to pass on. why not talk to them and see what he has in mind, what they think? host: if we can shift to domestic, on immigration, this has become an inflamed issue. how do we get beyond that on the immigration debate? the americanell: people have to understand we are in immigrant nation. it is our history. [applause] what immigrants have done for this country, we were built on the backs of immigrants, and we have always had difficulties with immigration policies through our history. the chinese building railroads, immigrantsopean looked down upon. i am a child of immigrant parents. my parents came here with fruit post in 1924.

have theof people story. a school is named after me in harlem. are minoritydents and about 80% say they were born in another country. and as you have been reading in the paper, the asia and influxes coming on top of the hispanic influx, and people all over the majority will be the immigrant nation, but they will be americans by then, in 30 or 40 years. we need a sensible immigration policy to bring these people out. if i was around mr. trump, donald, who i know rather well, i would say, let's tell all of the immigrants working in trump hotels to stay home tomorrow. [laughter] secretary powell: see what happens. [applause] secretary powell: are you

kidding me? when these folks leave to go to lunch, who was serving you? it was cooking in the back? will kill is manning the counters. look who was cleaning the place up. these are first-generation immigrants who will raise children who will go off to higher things. they are not mopping floors and waiting tables for their children do the same. it's the immigrant tradition very get started and the next generation will do better and the generation after that will be even better. [applause] you have endorsed think, twice.a, i you have attacked the republican position on immigration -- secretary powell: i do not agree it is the republican position on immigration. i think most republicans understand we need immigrants, nation, itimmigrants

is in our best interests to do it. but there are pockets of intolerance within the republican party that the republican party had better figure out how to defeat that. host: are you still a republican? [laughter] secretary powell: you did not mention of the fact that i voted for five presidents in a row that were republican. president reagan, i worked with howard baker. i'm still republican. in virginia, you do not have to declare a party, where i live. yes, i'm still republican. i believe in the entrepreneurial spirit that is typical of the party in the past. i'm having difficulty with the party now. i think the party has shifted much further right than the country is, and it should be obvious to the party leaders they cannot keep saying the things they are saying and doing the things that they are doing and hope to be successful at national level elections in the future. not just 2016, but in the

future. so, i want to continue to be a republican because it annoys them. [laughter] [applause] powell, thank you very much. ♪ steen now david morgan here with the atlantic's margaret carlson. margaret: good morning. david, since we were last on stage together, you have become a new father. 218that child has gotten million visitors according to youtube. you are referring to the baby panda? margaret: i am. who would not be alive without david. david: i don't know about that,

but they did tell me it was likely they would need artificial insemination to produce the baby pants up. and this 10 to fight for the -- artificial can insemination to produce the baby pandas. tend to fight for the time that they can reproduce. they asked if i wanted to watch. seemse a panda everyone to like, weighs about five pounds, and you are referring to he sneezed and everyone seemed to pay attention to that. when the government is not shut down, he greatest complaints seem to come from the fact that the panda cam is shut down rather than social security is

shut down. pandas fitow do the into patriotic philanthropy? david: i don't know about that being patriotic. but the national zoo is owned by the smithsonian, has always been. as a regent of the smithsonian, when i learned the pandas needed would helpdecided i them with that, but really, my view is patriotic plans or b is a bit of a misnomer. all philanthropy is patriotic. if you are doing any philanthropy, you're helping the community, so it's all easily patriotic. what i was trying to do in defying that phrase was things that particularly relate to things that have the u.s. government, they cannot afford to do anymore, reminding people of our heritage and traditions. the smithsonian gets about 60% of its budget from the federal

government. 40% comes from philanthropic contributions and that was in that context. togaret: how is it doing educate members of congress about history, your library of congress dinners? david : would be good to have congress come together in a new nonpartisan way. margaret: unlike the pandas, no fighting. with: what i try to do this -- i organized a dinner at the library of congress where i would interview a great scholar,ial washington, lincoln, so forth, and have a dinner, and before have them, we would gather and see documents from that era, go down, have a dinner, and they tend to sit

with members from the opposite party, which rarely happens. i would interview the scholar. there is no press there. nobody is preening for the cameras. some members of congress tell me this is the most interesting thing they are doing in watching 10, which is a sad commentary because you would think that passing legislation would be more interesting, but some members bring their wives in, and it is a date night. they say it is a rare time you can have a social event in washington, learn something, spend times with members of the opposite party, and not be criticized for anything. it has worked out well. we will continue doing that. a speaker in who did a play, and then the next one did a four-volume book on lyndon johnson. margaret: you are an early signator of the giving pledge. david: yes. children how do your

feel about your already deciding to give away most of their inheritance? secretary powell: the presumption is -- david: the presumption is that parents of money it will go to the children. it's a presumption. if a child inherits $500 million, there is no presumption the child will do something that will win a nobel peace prize. inheriting a lot of money, but it is a bit of a burden. people will not respect to as much. the idea i have had, make sure my children are fully formed before they feel they are going to get any money from a, and they probably won't get any anyway, if i have given them a good education, that's all they really need. they need unconditional love, a good education, a good start, that they do not need staggering sums of money to be successful. most people who do great things in the world come from a modest across.

i do not want to say people who inherited $500 million or a billion dollars and not great people, you look at people who win nobel is, they do not inherit staggering sums. my children are fine with it. there are 40 of us who signed this initially. we just celebrated the fifth anniversary, and we will probably come to washington to mark theear anniversary of it. margaret: have you given away any money you would like to have back? david: i have invested some money in deals i would like to have back. there are people who give away money and are very intense with looking at metrics and very much on top of the people they have given the money to. i tend to be more laid-back. i'm not saying the first method is back, but my method is to give people money, and generally easy about it. i do not regret anything that i've done. some has been more effective than others. i have been surprised.

most of my money has gone to education and medical research. but the patriotic philanthropy has got more attention because very few people are doing that. lots of people giving money to higher education and medical research. there give a large grants and something happens, it does not get as much attention, though attention is the most important thing. if i give 7.5 million dollars to the washington monument, people get talking about that. margaret: well, it is high-profile. high-profile, and i enjoy putting my initials of the top when nobody is looking. margaret: what is your mother most proud of? secretary powell: my mother is jewish, and i would say -- margaret: if only you had been a doctor. [laughter] to be ahe did want me dentist. she thought that was the highest calling of mankind. you get to be called a doctor. you do not have to work weekend hours. i talked her out of my being a

dentist. my mother shortly is going to be 85 years old, and most mothers are probably pleased with their children. i think she is probably pleased. the thing that is most interesting, when i was building carlyle and making money, she would never call and say, i'm really proud you are building this company. now that i am giving away money, she calls and says, i am much more proud about what you are doing now than when you're making the money. if my mother calls and is proud of what i am doing, i think i did a good thing. margaret: we don't have much money left -- we don't have much time left. i never have much money left. as chairman of the kennedy center, who picks the honorees? secretary powell: it is a mysterious -- david: it is a mysterious process nobody really understands. for the first 37 years or so, george stevens largely picked them. i did a good job of doing it. there was a committee of artists. there was crew by the executive

committee and the chairman of .he board now that george has retired from being the producer, we have a new producer in a process by which people can recommend from all over the country. we have a committee of distinguished artists -- julie andrews, yo-yo ma are on it -- they make recommendations. the chairman and members of the executive committee try to put together a slave that has balance to it. it is a combination of a lot of the executive -- committee try to put together a slate that is about to it. it is a common nation of a lot of people looking at it. margaret: have you ever thought about going back into government? 19%d: i got inflation at during the carter white house, and no one has out me back. i offered ben bernanke, i could come back and get inflation back for you. i think it's unlikely i will go back and government. i think you can do as much on

the outside is in the inside. i'm happy with where i am. the most important thing is do what i health to wanted to. i'm 66 years old. when you turn 60, people look at you differently. they say, well, you look good today. at the kennedy center, people say, mr. rubenstein, there are six steps. do you want to walk up the six steps, or do you want to take the elevator? when you turn 50, you can pretend you have 50 go, but when you turn 60, you cannot pretend you have 60. i'm racing through life because now i have access to things that i did not have before, people and money, and i do not want to waste time. i'm 22 the finish line, as i call it, and i just hope i am luckier than some of my colleagues. i read the obituary's every morning first thing. i know i'm lucky. imo am older than some of the people who have died. margaret: we have run out of time -- not existentially, just

-- david: thank you. margaret: i'm going to escort david to the elevator. thanks. welcome journalist -- yorker'sew correspondent here with james bennett. so, we are going to be, i guess, exploring some of the themes we have been talking about this morning, but from a radically different set of perspectives. and author and journalist of phd and comparative literature, i believe, and who was taken captive while working as a journalist in syria in 2012 and

held for almost two years by the our nusra fronts. his mother, nancy curtis, and rosen, who worked eventually with a coalition of people throughout that time to get him out. and then larry right -- larry wright, a correspondent, staff writer for "the new yorker," he wrote a powerful piece of for "the new yorker" that told the story of the oho's captivity -- 's captivity and that a for other hostages and their fates. i'm hoping we can explore what and how youh theo managed in the end to get him out. and also, you have had probably

more direct experience at incredible cost, of this movement at war with the united states than any other american and were hoping to get to insight that you learned. nancy, i wonder if we could start with you. and the moment when you first realized that something had gone wrong. waso in turkey. i knew he wanted to get into syria for just a couple of days because he really wanted to talk to the people and find out, why are you doing this, what is going on? i was worried about it, but i knew he was familiar with the in the and fluent language. i didn't let myself worry. in the meantime, he was in the process of buying a wood stove for our house in vermont. everyday day we had this e-mail conversation -- do we want this

and what colorer do we want? and all of a sudden, i did not hear from him. i have not heard from you, what's going on? i did not get an answer, and i knew that was it. something terrible had happened. i knew there had been bombings, shelling, conflict, and i didn't know anything, and i started , i friend cousin amy who worked in a congressman's office. i didn't know where to begin. but that's how it started. james: what had happened? theo: what had happened, i had made friends with 2, 3 young men in turkey on the border with syria, just north of arapahoe. beelieve these people to frees with the free cn --

syrian army. like an idiot, iran to the border with them. to the border with them. the first night, i slept in a band and house with them. the next morning, we did an wasrview -- i interviewing them. after 15 minutes i ran out of questions. i turned to them. i said, ok. i'm done with my questions. and then they's du stood up. handcuffs and they said, we are from the al qaeda organization. it knew no? james: what was going through your mind? theo: shit. [laughter] i had a friendly relationship with these people. i figured -- i knew something about kidnappings and i was

aware of the one thing you do not want to have happen is have them pass you want to another group. so, i tried to stay with them. i went to the free syrian army and i was tried in an islamic court. the islamic judge asked me a few questions, and they brought me back to the kidnappers. james: these were the moderates? theo: nice syrian people. james: and they returned you to your captors? theo: they returned me to my captors. i had a trial. the judge determined i deserve to go back to my captors, i belonged to them. up theamy, can you pick thread where nancy left it, and tell us, what was going on on the outside during this time, and when did you first get any theo and was holding

was he even still alive? as nancy said, she reached out to me and another cousin who is a current journalist and another cousin who is a former journalist. we started calling everybody we possibly could at the time. was a freelancer, so there was not a firm or a newspaper or workingthere to help us with the government. and we literally started by trying to find where he had been in turkey, where he had been staying, with the clues we had. he had changed his name legally, to protect himself, but that further complicated it. long calls with facebook and other organizations trying to get into his mail to see what was happening. we were incredibly fortunate because we knew a lot of people works. the world

we kept pounding and talking to everybody. , i was thereafter literally at the new york ideas center, with david bradley, who mentioned he was helping jim foley's family, and i thought, isn't that interesting? a missing cousin. he said, can you come to washington tomorrow? it started with david and his incredible team of people who helped us. cousinsh was, the three , we did not tell nancy, we had no confidence that you live. we wanted to make sure that we did everything we could, for nancy's sake at that point, to find out what happened. it took nine months until we have proof of life, and nine point, andwhich

american he had been held with, a skate. at which point the state department, which is not provided much of any information at that point, told us they had proof of life. theo, you wrote a very powerful piece for "new york your" magazine about captivity, and you describe a time after matt left where you were tortured viciously by your captors. but you also described pretty continuous torture from the moment you were taken. it really was not even clear to me reading the piece what outcome the hostage takers were after, why they continued to beat you and use a cattle prod on you. they didn't seem particularly interested in having you convert. what was the point? they are interested in having all unbelievers, all christians, anyone who is not muslim, they want them to convert. but not through torture.

you're supposed to read the koran and arrive 8 -- james: you had lived in yemen 14 of years and were fluent in arabic -- you had lived in yemen years and were fluent in arabic. theo: four months and months and months, they were just beating me. i would come back to my so afterward. and i would think, what was that about? they would go through the motions of asking the questions. they would pretend this was an interrogation, but i knew they were not taking notes. at one time they said, are you from the pentagon or the cia? i said, what's the difference? they said, oh, good point. they were not after specific information. ofmy opinion, the function the torture is for them. it's something -- it's an initiation ceremony that deepens the commitment of -- especially

the children. always the children were involved. it's frightening for the children to participate in this. the psychology of the children. the entire environment is frightening, particularly when they are bombing. it frames the children. they bring them down into the basement. torturee them instruments and they say, have at it. the kids go, i don't really want to. that they do eventually. in my view, all of the outsiders, the midway muslims, the people who are not totally committed, they get committed through the violence. the more violence that exists in this culture, the worse it is for us. larry, we have a photo op before other hostages taken, if we can project it up there. i wonder if you can tell us a little bit about each of them, who they were, how their

experience, how it differed or was similar to what you went through? the main differences they misfortune of being taken by isis. jim foley was a reporter. he had been captured previously in libya, and thanks to david bradley, who is really the hero of the story, he was freed from that incarceration. and then went back into conflict journalism and was taken by isis, as was another reporter, steven sotloff. workers -- 2re 28 workers, peter caf au lait, who started his own entrepreneurial service to get care where it was most needed, places the u.n. would not go to,

he personally went and trained people in emergency care and took care of people. -- calebcaleb mueller a mueller was a very extraordinary person, had been assisting people all over the world, especially in syria. she had taken on this task of going to profitably -- to probably the worst place in the world to try to help people out. she was on the path to some kind of sainthood. these are the kind of people that when you have conflict, you need information and you need help to read often they are criticized for going to help out, but where else do get the information and who else is going to help if young people, idealistic young people like that, who are the people who go and try to participate and help out?

the four other hostages all work killed. you say the difference was they were held by isis and theo by the nusra front. split those groups apart for us to read how was it that theo was freed in the end? larry: as the old tell you, it's not easy to split the groups. they are very fluid. the movement from one islamist organization to another -- nusra had relationships, in one case, with cutter. and some of these -- with guitar. nusra had relationships, in one case, with qatar. if the richest islamist group

does not depend on the aid from sra was countries -- nu in a different spot and was more amenable to the pressure bought to -- brought to bear on theo 's situation. through his efforts, through the head of intelligence in qatar, of hisactually sent one operatives into syria, who was threatened. they talked about killing her. but they did get the word out and the transfer was affected through the agency. up -- iust to back should be clear, david bradley is my boss and the owner of "the atlantic." bity, can you talk a little

about what the relationship was like among the five families during this time when all of your children were being -- nancy: yes. early on, some of the said go to the red cross, the international red cross. that was them. the woman said, i probably should not be telling you this, but there's another family from new england who has a son who has been taken captive. that is how i got in touch with diane foley. lottheo and jim foley had a in common. both teachers, both committed to helping the disadvantaged, both riders. both from northern new england. knew they would be best friends when they got out. i did not meet the other families or even know of their existence until david bradley and "the atlantic" brought all of the families together, all five families together for a

meeting in may of 20 routine -- may of 2014. we spent a whole day talking about our situation, and the second day we were taken around capitol hill to the fbi to meet various congressmen and senators , all done through david bradley and his team. -- they were the ones that really remained close, but again david bradley has brought us all together. hard and me, it's to recognize that he is survived in the others did not. it has been something for us to struggle with. but i think the other families, in their great generosity of

parts, recognize that some -- generosity of hearts, recognize that something of their children eo and welcome him with open arms. would like to return to the question with some of the lessons that could be extracted from this, and maybe what we should be doing as a country now. it's just astonishing to hear you say you were being used as an instrument to desensitize the kids and prepare them to be members of this extraordinary violent movement. explains how your captors -- what draws them to this? what makes them -- i do not think -- desensitization is not the right word. it is a heightened experience.

it's a spiritual experience for them to participate in these rituals that extract them from normal everyday life. when you're causing another human being to suffer, they would tell me in the torture room -- the ribby somebody hanging from the ceiling screaming. screaming at the top of his lungs. they would say it brings them closer to god. to punish the enemies of god -- of which i was. by the way, all of you people as americans, your enemies of god. they believe christianity is destined, all christians, by the way, are destined to come to an end of times conflict with islam and islam will eventually triumph over christianity. they are participating in this triumph at the moment. they are approaching godliness. so, what was your question again? james: you have answered a much better question than the one i

asked. but you say it is all in the carranza, and -- it is all in and this is the debate we keep having in the u.s., how to understand whether the origin of this version of islam is authentic. is not an issue they debate among themselves. 99% of the time, they spend their time doing the things that muslimventional does. they're very punctual for their prayers. maintained thely fast. you're supposed to get points if you read a page of the carranza every day. -- of the carranza every day. you get merit points if you read the koran. if you said to these people you are doing it all wrong, who are we to tell them that they

misinterpreted their religion? you are reading it with them, by the way, and you feel surrounded by islam. it's a mistake to say you guys do not know what you're talking about. james: you're still in touch with some of your captors, right? theo: in. i'm interested in what they are up to. i like to be useful in getting the people that they have out, and i hope to getkayla and peter and stephen out, too. we were not able to do that. my relationships with these people can be used to our damage. -- james: the next question is do you and then to larry -- based on everything you have learned, what do you think we do about this movement? them aidshould send and chocolates and blankets. i think we need to be nice to them. keeplly believe -- we can

killing these people, but more will come. 2,you have 10 and you kill you don't get eight. you get 20. the bombs spread the hatred. the bombs at we are dropping now, they only spread the hatred and create more. they are coming up from chechnya, they are coming from turkey, they are coming from the entire region. bashar al-assad has confronted. there is a vacuum for islam and state. -- the islamic state. there has to be a strong, strong powerful force that buys off some of the people and punishes the ones that refused to be bought off. james: and you think we should work with assad? theo: yes.

that's what i think. james: larry? regime does not threaten american interests, and isis does. however, both of them create a problem that is threatening the west and our allies in the region, which is a massive flow of refugees. one out of every four people in lebanon right now is syrian. there are 2 million syrian refugees in turkey. the whole palestinian exit is in in8 was 700,000 -- exit us 1948 was 700,000. now we have 5 million syrians away from the country, 10 million, half the population of syria is in a refugee state. this is politically destabilizing.

so, i think our focus should be on how do we stem that tide of refugees? i think a no-fly zone would give a sanctuary in northern syria ould probably be helpful. the other thing is our sunni allies in the region are ambivalent about this, because they want assad gone. in theirare restrained attempt to help us contain isis. i think eliminating that ambivalence would be very helpful. it happened in jordan when one of our pilots was burned in a cage. that may have led to kayla's death. this is the middle east.

it's like a rubik's cube that does not have a solution. you can keep moving the pieces around. --es: nancy, just enclosing i like to hear your answer to a simple question, which is how is doing? i think he is doing fine. he has entered a horrific have the otheras families. i think it is helpful that he was a mature man. theo: thanks, mom. james: we'll leave it there. thank you. thank you. nancy: thank you. ♪ the cofounder of black lives matter here with "the atlantic"

-- ♪ >> thank you so much for joining us. it's an honor to talk to you. obviously there's a lot more than we can cover in 15 minutes, but let's cover as much as we can. let's start by talking about what is black lives matter? it's something that any informed person is aware of, it has become fairly omnipresent certainly since ferguson and there have been black lives every majorst in american city, but i think a lot of americans are uncertain or confused about what it is. is it an actual organization? is it in organizing strategy? is it in advocacy concept? it is a social media phenomenon

or a meme or a rallying call? what is it? >> thanks so much for the conversation. it is actually all of those things that you mentioned. i think that is what has been so beautiful about it. #blacklivesmatter began to get years ago in the wake of the shooting death of trayvon martin at the hands of george zimmerman. created a social media presence to talk about what is communities, around a number of social issues and the disparate outcomes that our are experiencing and

everyone of our lives. this was a racial justice project for black people, knowing that if we had to create a platform and a new way of thinking about what was taking place in our communities, we would have an opportunity to reframe the conversation, and hopefully, create a world where black lives would actually matter. it was a number of things. it was a hashtag. it was a platform. now it is a network. we have -- scott: this is a real organization. if there are hierarchy, a structure? this's no funding for question mark this is all grassroots, spontaneous organization? opal: right, it's a grassroots effort. we are still raising funds, but

it is a decentralized network. people are acting on their own. they are figuring out campaigns. they are figuring out strategies that work for them. they are engaging with committee officials. they are having their own community town halls and healing circles in a range of activities that make sense for their local context. however, we are savvy. we are strategic, and we are coordinating at the national level. mattert only black lives , but there is a constellation of social justice organizations across the country. we are truly a movement of various groups, various community organizations and so on. scott: interesting. i want to come back to talking about the tactics and philosophy of black lives matter, but owing back to the story in three minutes or less if possible, how ?t came to be founded

i think i recall reading you were actually at a movie and you socialt to learn via media the verdict that george zimmerman had been acquitted -- i guess this was july 2013. how did that then leads to what has become this national movement? thanks for the question. with many13, i along others, i'm sure, was watching georgeosely the trial of zimmerman and many of us were concerned that a young boy like trayvon martin -- you many of us have identified with, right? we have sons, cousins, brothers. we recognize this could have been one of our own, right? we were watching and waiting and i know myself, i had just station," thevale film about the life of auster grant to was killed by the oakland police department.

was with some of my closest girlfriends. i remember sitting on a corner and getting text messages and tweets, folks that were frantic. "hey, did you hear? george zimmerman was acquitted of this murder." "what are we going to do about this?" folks were beginning to strategize and rallies were being planned. i've remember that moment just sitting, really with the fact that everybody knew what took thee, and despite all of knowledge, despite the testimony, despite all of that, trayvon martin was put on trial for his own death, his own murder, his family had to be put through all of this, the entire society, right? u.s. society, we all went through collective trauma, witnessing that, right? i was struck with the fact that

my younger brother, who was the youngest brother, 14 at the time, could have been trayvon martin. loved sog boy that i dearly, that i would do anything for could have his own life under threat, and so could my other cousins, my god kids, and so on. something had to change and i wanted to help to construct a political project that would say never again. never again in our lifetime. scott: i don't know if you knew two other, but founders with you of black lives matter, you wrote a facebook post that galvanized this question mark opal: -- galvanized this? read this i wrote post by only see a gardens.

it was basically a love note. at the end of your post, she said our lives matter, black lives matter. and our dear sister patrice put a hashtag on it. and you know, that went viral, but actually i thought, we need to create our own social media platform. create a facebook page, a tumblr and a twitter. beyond our walls, we need this to be public. we need people to try to this message and in sure the work that they are doing. what does this mean for them? collective we as a make sure we are coordinated and uplifting a message that will ensure all of our black lives matter? my segue tois questions about tactics, philosophy, and goals. -- and the overarching

there are a lot of sub elements of this. black lives matter, do you see yourselves as a revolutionary movement working outside the system or an evolutionary movement working outside political structures? let me cite a couple of examples that a been controversial. one of your cofounders, patrice led a protest when bernie sanders was trying to speak. she interrupted his speech and martin o'malley's. in the following month, again, bernie sanders, who is pretty far to the left side of the democratic party, was also disrupted in seattle, and you -- and adisrupting his current one i was just reading about from the minneapolis "star there was athink

marathon in minneapolis this weekend, and black lives matter organizers are saying we will disrupt the marathon and there is pushed back against that. say, decentralized group -- you may have nothing to do with this guy, but when marathoners said we're just trying to run this race and we are sympathetic to your goals, but please let us run the race, spokesman said "the negro's gray sumlin locked to freedom -- great stumbling block to freedom is the white moderate. you work in the system are without it. where is black lives matter and do you condone or endorse the disrupting of bernie sanders, hillary clinton, other sorts of -- opal: yeah, well, where i think

e we are at, we're open to a myriad of tactics. we know there are people who will be inspired to work within the system as it is. we will not denigrate their actions. everybody, no matter where you are, what your socioeconomic status, what your job is, you to take action and stand on the side of people who have been oppressed for generations. we think that is crystal clear. whatever means that needs to take, we think folks should do that. do you think that that can be up to the more natural and existing parties system, or that is not sufficient? the existing mainstream politics is insufficient to address the deep structural racist inequalities? opal: i think -- opal: i think the two-party system is not working for us and

has not worked for us for generations. what we're seeing is a crisis in our own democracy, and the reality is these types of actions we are seeing -- the disruptions, the really courageous acts of nonviolent disobedience taking this country by storm really -- is an effort to call attention to the very real crisis happening in our communities. our communities are reeling from poverty, unemployment, discrimination of all sorts, different interactions from law enforcement, our education system, and so on. these actions are actually to make very visible what is taking place and also to put forth, i would say moral dilemma. ours demonstrate the ways communities are being undermined time and time again and make sure that the broader public and those in power choose to stand with us.

that is what these actions are all about. i think what is really brilliant and beautiful about the types of courageous actions the board taking, be it around the elections and so on -- we are really redefining the political process. this is civic engagement. it is our democratic duty to dissent. it is our democratic duty to rise up. that is what we saw in ferguson. people were willing to put skin and say, hey, mike brown was murdered here. our lives are not mattering. we want to make sure that people know about this. i think we are involved. very much so, they're right. i'm inspired by people taking action across the country. this may be a completely predictable response, but you have among conservatives rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly, pretty much everyone down the line of fox saying, actually

black lives matter is a hate demonizingy are police. benevolente police association of new york appropriate in your language and saying blue lives matter. is this standard politics, the rightonary wing of the reacting to the radical wing of the left? or is there the danger this comes in escalating conflict? opal: right. i think when we say black lives matter -- in fact, i don't think, i know when we say black lives matter, we are not saying that any other life does not matter. that has never, ever been our message. our message has been a place of love, love for people, for our society, for our brothers and sisters. when we say black lives matter, it is to ensure the quality of life and the viability of life for black people. and every other community that

has been marginalized and oppressed will also have an uplifted quality of life as well. so, i think it's a distraction in many ways, when folks try to whenapart the words, but they try to understand the reality of the black experience in the u.s., they could not be so scared to come alongside us and really speak authentically and earnestly about what is taking place. scott: you have said this was obviously galvanized by ferguson and freddie gray eric garner and trayvon martin and tamir rice, but this is more than just about criminal justice. this is about addressing structural problems and problems of poverty in the black community. black community. i guess last question, you were actually very hopeful. you wouldn't be doing this if you didn't believe there would be progress. colleague has become rogressively more darkly pessimistic in his view, and,

ou know, doesn't believe that e can reach some, an idea of a post-racial utopia, but, you know, we're never going to get past these things and beyond that, we'll never redeem the suffering and the misery and the truggles of previous generations of african-americans. you don't believe that? more hopeful view. give us some hope to end with opal: well, the reality is that we're seeing people of conscience of every walk of life i would call aat multi-racial movement for black lives. i've seen acts of solidarity from south africa to germany and on, and so i so believe that there are actually conscience everywhere that will not sittidely by while black lives are being devalued systematically. social justice background. i've done a lot of immigrant

organizing and racial justice so i zing for years, believe that when we take action, things can actually been inspired e by young folks who are leading, elders who are coming alongside us and teaching us all sorts of important lessons and are , andng us in this movement the fact that there are people from all walks of life that are absolutely , so i'm hopeful. i've begun -- we've seen some changes already, and i believe that.continue to see and and to be clear, i believe policy, but it's a cultural shift we need to see. >> on that hopeful note, let's end, thank you very much. and good luck. [applause] the d now, please welcome director of the research agency to the atlantic summons. >> hello, everybody.

one of the coolest people in washington d.c. you're the least known coolest person, but we're going to fix that today. this is the director of the advanced defense research right? is that >> exactly right. >> i guess i want to start off you hat comically and ask if you're really responsible for captain america in addition to the internet. credit for allke the good things in the world, but i think that would probably a -- ittle bit of steve: it's bad to refer to james bond since he's on the can sh side of things, but you imagine exploding pens and technology, and security issues, that you're the home base of that in america, of the cool gadgets, the cool computers and gy. cool technolo >> those are some of the things that come out of our research. what we're responsible for is reventing and creating technological surprise for national security, and sometimes

next eans working on the generation of military systems unparallel s an advantage in the battle field. teve: did al gore have any role in that? arati: the role traces back to the late '60s when some of the darpa, connecting these machines that of were very expensive. i don't know where those came idea was the first could you share these resources. also, at darpa and our part of that story and the people who wrote the first protocols that essentially defined the internet. an incrediblyayed important role after that as to

the national science foundation research it from the community out to the whole rest of the world. steve: you generously gave walter isaacson a great deal of credit, who wrote a book called "the innovators" and you said finally someone got the story right. arati: i got that book for christmas and i was reading it, and it's a wonderful book by alter, and it's a chapter that delineates this marvelous story of how the internet went from a research project to something all of our lives, and i started reading it out loud to my husband who had staffer for al gore and it was just so wonderful to see that story come out loud and clear. it was terrific. steve: i dug in ask done some research and realized, because i wonder if you're president of the united states, what's one of the first things you would do? you would go see the place that makes all the cool gadgets, but i understand president obama has and isited your facility checked in but hillary clinton loves to drive by. arati: is that true? know that. not while i've been there.

steve: so which clinton? arati: i don't know the answer to that. i think what you have to realize is that we are this minuscule art of this much larger research and development enterprise. we're a minuscule part of the defense department. we get to do -- our mission allows us to do these amazing only , and it's actually because people in my chain of command up to the president actually understand our mission room to do it. steve: define your mission for talking se we've been about the sort of fun things. actually, you in the national security realm, you have objectives out there, you have a very key role, darpa is, you know, for hitting above its of the or budget, one most known and respected institutions in advanced technology in the world. what your ou define mission is? arati: yeah, our mission traces us back to our founding, and the trigger event for that was in 1957 when human beings put the artificial satellite on orbit. that was sputnik. with that y problem was the human beings that did that were the soviets at the

height of the cold war. that was a very unpleasant surprise in the united states. i actually think this country smart ange of really things to respond. and one of them was to create advanced tially the research projects agency, this little place tucked away in the department. so our job from the very beginning was to prevent that surprise chnological and very quickly, the people who started the agency realized is the way you prevent surprises is to go create surprises of your own. from that core mission came decades of investment that transformation in how the military fights through self technology and precision strike and many other underlying componen components. we also invested in these that ng core technologies led to the internet, that led to a lot of the great advances that are the foundation for what's semiconductor e industry, artificial intelligence and advanced

materials. we did those for national security and a few other people got in the game, and as the private capital drove those they not es forward, only changed how we fight, but they've changed how we live and work. steve: andy marshall, who many people affectionately called yoda, who was the net assessment chief at the pentagon for many years was obsesseded with about what ssion they call the revolution in military affairs and the evolution in military affairs as they saw it was primarily what darpa was doing to change war, to create mart shoulders to synthesize information and communication in ways that hadn't been there. wasmuch of chinese paranoia correct? arati: what we did was showed technologically possible and, of course, it took the rest of the department of defense and our military service members, all of that came together and created this military capability.

chinese, world, the everyone else as well, really saw what that was all about in war.irst gulf that was a time when we had built these capabilities to counter a far, you know, nu merically superior soviet union. technology of that for the full de gap, which we did ely was a place not end up fighting. in 1991 when we went in baghdad, we were going up against air defense systems that were based it was,soviet model, so in essence, what we had designed against. i think until that moment, i knew if nk we really our investments were going to pay off. a very longave been air campaign going into baghdad, attrition.war of nstead, we flew hundreds and took out their air defense system very efficiently and really justies, and demonstrated this overwhelming

advantage based on these core technologies that had been developed over a few years. so, you know, i think that's actually for many of us, that's till the picture we have of what u.s. military superiority still ike, and it -- we have this notion about being able to operate far from home sophisticatedirly adversary, as it was at the time, and being able to do whatever we need to do with minimal losses, and i think it's important to say that was awesome. that was really good. it wasn't an accident, we could do that. andnow it's 20 years later, everyone around the world has seen exactly how we do that, and you know, any of these big advances are only fleeting for that kind of offset. so where we are today in the is exactlyof defense at that point coming out of a war,de and-a-half of ground thinking about this issue of how do we deal with where advanced now.tary capability is it's not where it was in 1991.

adversaries have access to global technology. you know, what's our next move, that leaps ahead of that. steve: right. any chance you can share with us ome super secret next thing that you haven't shared with anyone else? arati: no. steve: let's get that out of the way. arati: to be clear, it's obviously classified and we can't talk about it. but there are some really powerful ideas brewing about what this next offset strategy could be, something that's been driven from the most senior levels within the department but i think the core ideas have to -- we're not going to turn the clock back to a time when the u.s. have all the secret gets to no one else play, right. steve: well, the question is the gap, right? know you have, you know, tangible feel for what we're what ing in resources, we're going to do in cyber, what the smart soldiers will look like in the future. and i think the question is, as i hold an iphone here, is when withook at what's happened technology globally, and what

has happened just with innovators in the united states, i assume the gap between the super secret stuff you're doing, and what can be done outside your shop has narrowed over the years. does that worry you? how do you deal with it? arati: number 1, i think what you're talking about is the globalization of technology and the fact that we in thisbe, for example, country 2/3 of the country's research and development from thet used to come government and 1/3 from the private sector. now that's flipped. sector from the private and only a third from the government, of which we're only a piece. i think those - are trends that are very important. most of the implications, i think, are great. it's a better world when technology is alleviating poverty around the world and creating opportunity and connecting us. and it's a better world when our driving ector is technology and becoming this much more innovation-intensive economy. i think those are great things.

the implications for national ant.rity are pretty signific and so i think the secret to success here is not to try to build a wall. it's not to try to, you know, non-obtaining them, and do something magic. i think the secret to success is harness that commercial technology and turn it into military capability, much more powerfully than anyone else can. steve: one of the interesting prabhakar, inarati the 1990s, you were the head of the national institute for technology, which often dealt with the private sector side of this, and interacting with creating es, cooperative research and development, just a broader range of bridging the gap between various technology pools, oftentimes with the national labs in the private sector. i guess one of the questions i want to ask you, and maybe you can give me a short form answer, is should we be worrying about the ecosystem for technology innovation in this country as we've always known it? hould we just be relying on google to go invent the next

things? but is there a broader worry you ave about the health and vitality of the ecosystem? arati: yeah, i think maybe not worry, but i think we should never take it for granted. t is that community that creates technology advances is what drives our economy. it's what keeps our country secure. it's what allows us to live reliable secure energy. none of that happens without our technology ecosystem. ecosystem. it's not static. it keeps changing. i think it's great to see google have the who foresight and the resources to invest in research, but i think as it'sneed to realize, been throughout history, there are public roles and there are roles, and we want to make sure we keep that balance and the basic research product development. steve: i asked walter isaacson what he would ask you if he were up here. cyber. talk to her about the national command of the

security agency said this is something we need to double down and need to think, and the adversaries out there they states s, be like russia or china, that we need to develop a new architecture of deterrence. i guess my two-part question on cyber is, is there a way to go from your shop on the offense on cyber, and how do you think about cold war analogies coming into those things? arati: yeah, let me tell you what our role is in the cyber world. first of all, everyone is in the cyber issue, because every one of us has networks and needs ourrmation technology to do daily jobs. steve: have you guys been hacked? arati: i've been hacked. you've been hacked. we're all -- we're under constant attack, as is pretty much all of the defense department, but as are commercial companies as well. so that's something marvelous going on there. i think what we -- how we all deal with it today is patch and pray. we're finding vulnerabilities quickly as them as we can and that's why we talk

about hiring more cyber warriors o try to do that faster, and that's all we've got, so we should be doing that. he darpa question there is can -- the threat is growing at the pace that information technology is growing. that is a phenomenal pace, right. think about the amount of data. think about our continued growth and our reliance on information systems. ll of that comes with more tax -- attack surface, more vulnerabilities. the question is can we outgrow those vulnerabilities. can we find foundational approaches that will take whole classes of vulnerabilities off the table. can we find ways of cyber defense that will scale faster warriors,ng more cyber and so our programs are along those lines. one of the things you hear about is the internet of things as more and more devices get connected. think about our cars. here's been a lot in the news lately about the vulnerabilities of automobiles. the defense department is chock full of everything we have. it has processors in it,

intually all of them connect some way to the rest of the world. so this is a big problem for us too. one of our problems, as an example, is building -- taking ome basic, really beautiful fundamental math and scaling it so that you can build imbedded processes. so not huge amounts of code, but sort of manageable amounts of a way d build it in that's provably secure. it's mathematically, provably secure. hacked for specified security properties. now,, you know, that changes the game. , that's a n attacker lot less attractive place for you to spend your time and maybe you'll bother somebody else and we can start creating a little bit safer environment where it's really critical. you see the ny of movie "transcendence" with depp? i'm a big fan of him. musk. cameo of elan tesla.acts and and he's been out there worried

as the movie is worried about, advances in artificial intelligence, the advances in robotics, the kind of turbo-chargeded internet of things where people become less and less part of the equation. wrote yce some years ago about the advances in computing cetera, technology, et were creating new risks, and i'm interested, given the role -- are there things that we should be worried about that elan musk is not crazy, that there are things we should be thinking about as we propel ofselves into this new world a very different association between non-human stuff? look, if eah, well, you're going to work on powerful technologies, you have to be every one of h hose advances comes the opportunity for great new possibilities and capabilities. that's why we do this work. ut we know, history tells us that every powerful technology is going to bring with it huge societal challenges and ethical questions, and the potential for

misuse, and i think that's -- i to be very st want clear-eyed about that. so i think it's essential that questions.se kinds of i don't -- i'm not really sure those questions are being asked that's going to -- that's going to give us the insights that we need. about is not what technology will go do by itself. humansworry about is how are going to use technology. that's the history of where badly.go it's when the human beings get in the mix, it gets very interesting, of course. so, i think yes, machines are going to be able to do more and battlehether it's on the field or in our work lives or personal lives and i think we're going to face some very human questions about how much autonomy will we give them under we h circumstances so that still accomplish, you know, our human objectives, right. yes, let's be talking about that. i think those are very vital questions. teve: thank you for spending time with us today. you are one of the great technology leaders in the united

states and you seem a lot less person than me in on paper. so thank you very much. [applause] >> and now, a conversation with comcastour underwriters, senior executive vice president nbc's . cohen with ms jose diaz. >> how are you. >> today me about internet essentials. >> for those of you don't know, internet essentials is the most in the nsive program country. internetnth for 10 meg service. the option to purchase a ubsidized fully internet capable and microsoft office loaded computer for under $150. . d most importantly, of all, jose: you own it. david: you own it.

nd most importantly of all, a comprehensive suite of digital literacy training, materials in online, and a person delivered through thousands of nonprofit around the country. it? who has access to david: any family in the country who has a child eligible o participate in the national school lunch program was eligible to participate in the program. in four years, we have four years of data. we've been able to sign up 500,000 families, more than two low-income americans to the internet. most of them for the first time in their lives. ose: we always hear, absolutely, it's a great program. we always hear about the digital divide. what exactly is it and how big of a digital divide are we united states? david: the digital divide is y of people isparit on one end of the spectrum who tend to be mostly low income, living in urban america, who did not have access to the internet

t home, and a population of mostly wealthier people, most of them in suburban america and in cities who dos of have access to the internet. you can put numbers on it. broad band adoption in low-income urban communities can rarely w as 15 or 20 within 30% broad band adoption n those wealthier communities is 85-90% or even higher. and that's the divide. jose: to bring it another way, many of our communities, 70% of the people living in many of our communities don't have access to internet internet. david: anyone in this audience and their families have access o educational tools, access to vocational opportunities, and access to news information and all take ent, that we for granted, and yet a wide

swath of our population is being left behind. jose: think about this. if you're living without this day and s in age and living in one of our ities, you are literally surrounded by a moat of silence and your children don't have basic to the nderstanding, that many other children do. teachers ve met with conflicted as to whether software because more than half of the kids don't have home and wills at be left further behind because they can't do the homework they do as a result of the education of the software. jose: i have a fourth grade daughter, and her homework is through the internet. david: right. comcast is the largest internet service provider in the country.

and all of our employees from and call center employees to our most senior how tives recognize essential the internet is. that's why we call it internet essentials, and it's why as a company we have a passion for this program. before, i don't understand how in a country that is the richest nation on earth, technologically advanced nation on earth, how we can tolerate as a public policy matter, as a corporate social responsibility matter, leaving low-income our children and families behind and denying them access to the internet. jose: and when you have access to the internet, it's generationally changing in that family. david: one of the things we have learned, there's been a lot if esearch done on this, is we can get an internet -- if we can get a computer and internet not s into a home, it's just the eighth grader or the fourth grader, the 11th grader but all ofs from it, a sudden, you've got the

parents. jose: of course, the grandmothers. david: they search online for jobs and you've got grandmothers to healthcarecess information, so you're literally opening up the world of the byernet to the entire family getting it into the home. jose: so now coming up on your expanded toyou have low income seniors, among others. seniors us on just the part. david: there's a couple of pilot programs, one in florida, which you're familiar with. for low-income seniors, the fewer than half of low income seniors in america have access to the internet. one of the critical issues around elder care today is the sense of isolation that seniors have, and, of course, the great way for them to maintain connectedness to their family, to their resources thatto they need. so we've got a couple of pilot rograms expanding the eligibility to low income

seniors as a way to try and attacking problems with the digital divide with that population which, of course, is very different than school-aged population. we have, again, a couple of the state of colorado, in the state of illinois, where extended eligibility to -- eligibility for internet essentials to low income community college students, and that view is just the extension of the program. imagine you have access to the internet as a high school student, you graduate high chool, you get a job, you move into your own apartment, and you would roll into community ollege, but you don't have access to the internet anymore. you've moved out of your family's home. that t to make sure that path to educational success ontinues, and you need a computer at home just as much or community college as you do high school or middle school.

jose: coming into your fifth year. david: we're continuing to use this program to continue to enroll in, veterans populations, people with disabilities. again, the key learning, and if everyone leaves here with one thought in mind, it's not just the cost of the service or the ost of the equipment, the real cost is relevance, and so we are bound and determined to increase programs l literacy and training programs which, by the way, we offer in multiple languages. jose: yes, i went to the espanol site. david: our literature is available in 14 different languages. the web site is english and spanish, so that is our priority. literacy, digital digital awareness, and really driving broad band adoption and for every reality american to have access to the internet at home. jose: what a tragedy that many of our communities live

quacks on the next washington onrnal, peter ackerman efforts to open up presidential debates to third-party candidates. year and tax preparation advice , plusevin mccormally your phone calls, tweets and facebook comments. washington journal live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> sunday night on q&a, tyler abel, stepson of the late columnist, talks about the second volume of his diaries which gives a take on washington, d.c. from 1960 to 1969. >> it was just remarkable all the things that he did. sometimes he would criticize himself in the diary. there were different places where he says i think that column was too strong. i should not have said it that me or lyndon will get mad at

with the way i wrote the column. he needed to be told what i wrote. >> sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on q&a. as 2015 wraps up, c-span presents congress year in review. a look back at all the newsmaking issues, debates and hearings that took center stage on capitol hill this year. join us thursday, december 31 at 8 p.m. eastern as we revisit mitch mcconnell taking his position as senate majority leader. pope francis' historic address to congress. the resignation of house speaker john boehner and the election of paul ryan. the debate over the nuclear deal with iran and reaction from congress on mass shootings here and abroad, gun control, terrorism and the rise of isis. congress, year in review on

atpan, thursday, december 31 8 p.m. eastern. each year, 300 members of britain's youth parliament meets at the house of commons for debates on current issues. it is made up of young people from across britain between the ages of 11 and 18. this part of the debate focuses on issues related to racism, religious discrimination and education. it is one hour and a half. speaker: please, take your seat. speaker: please, take your seats. and make yourselves at home. home. parliamentary colleagues here are present, but more importantly, members of the

united kingdom youth parliament, welcome to the chamber of the house of commons. debatealking both to the leads, and to a number of the magna carta speakers less than an hour ago, and i ask them which of them have been present here last year. a small smattering have been, about a third, i would guess. the great majority had not participated last year. perhaps i can ask, hands up, which of you were here last year? a very small proportion. probably not even 1/8, i would guess. the vast majority of you are new, and you could not be more welcome. this is the seventh meeting of the u.k. youth parliament in the house of commons chamber. we began what is now a very established and revered , and i hope 2009

that this will continue year after year after year, decade after decade after decade. the issues to be debated today were made by the make your michael ballack -- mark ballot. last year almost doubled from the previous year. the british youth council reports this year the number has 968,091d again, with young people casting a vote. congratulations to you. [applause] so you don't need me to tell you what your target is for next year. it is that million mark. i'm quite sure that you will. you will choose the

issues that you wish to have as the subjects of your priority campaigns for 2016. this year's youth parliament also marks the second year of the paul basket memorial award. that award was set up last year in the wake of the passing of paul basket, one of the driving forces behind the u.k. youth prominent, and a very figure of the british youth council. i remember all fondly and with great respect. support workers and parliamentary staff will have the opportunity to vote for a speech lead and another speech. presentation of awards will take place at a reception in january of next year. today's proceedings will be .roadcast live on the internet members of the youth parliament who wish to speak should stand in their place. and i would add, it is helpful if you say your name and region at the beginning of your speech,

just to be sure that those who compiled the official reports know who you are, and it is probably advisable when you are called just to cause for a moment -- a matter of a couple of seconds -- to enable your microphone to be activated. there are two other things i want to say and then i will have a great pleasure of calling the deputy leader of the house terry's coffee, to say some remarks to you. those two things are as follows. , todayon a somber note in london is the funeral of michael beecher, who served in this house as labor member of parliament for oldham west for 45 years. i mentioned michael because he houseteemed across the

for his dedication, his principal, his sincerity, and his service. i am with you because i want to be here, and i cannot be at his funeral, but i think it only should monitor respectvice and our due to someone who took his responsibilities as a constituent member of parliament , as well as a one-time minister , very seriously indeed. the second thing i say is the reason i'm here year after year, is partly because i enjoy the occasion, but also, i believe, fundamentally and deeply, in the united kingdom youth parliament. before i was elected speaker, i was one of those that voted for your right to stage your annual debates here.

i remember to one fairly crusty individual who is no longer a member of this house, retired from it, who was profoundly opposed to the youth parliament coming here saying that i did not share his dire prophecy of what would happen. he thought, at the very least, if allowed to come here, chewing gum would be left all over the penber, and at worst, knives would be used and great damage would be inflicted on the bench as he loved. i said that was stuff and nonsense. specifically, i predicted to him that members of the youth parliament would be proud to ,ome here, would you speak well and would behave much better than we do day to day. and i say in vindication of you, as members of the youth parliament, over the last six

years, i have been proved right on all three counts. there is no reason why today should be any different. i sense that feeling of pride that you have to be here, i'm confident that you will speak well, or i'm sure that you will behave impeccably as well. remember, to all the other members who are observing the proceedings, to teachers, support workers, representatives of the house,aff to me, we are all on your side. we are wishing you well, we are proud of the fact that you are here. i hope you have a great day. i will not be able to call everybody, but i will try to call people from different parts of the u.k. proportionately and to ensure there is a proper gender balance. i will do everything i can to maximize participation. thank you for coming, it will be a very special day. give a warm and

enthusiastic welcome to the deputy leader of the house of commons, dr. therese coffey. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker, and they continued parliament. in 800 year of the matter car in the seventh year that the youth parliament has met in the chamber of the house of commons, on behalf of the government, unlike to extend a warm welcome to all members of the youth parliament. i know my friend the prime minister has written a letter which will be run by one of your colleagues. i represent the constituents of suffolk since 2010 and have recently served as a member of government. i am responsible for representing government in parliament and representing parliament within government. i hope all members of the youth parliament will cherish the opportunity to be here and treasure the memories sitting in this place. this is a very special chamber and it is an honor to sit on these benches and i expect all members of the youth are limited

will make the most of it during today's debate, using it with an appropriate consciousness of the history, traditions, and conventions of their surroundings. one such addition is saying the prayers at the start of every sitting day. in the a special time chamber. all business, including debates, taking place in public and recorded on television. thereld advise people, are some new camera angles which have appeared, compared to previous years. the only timeis when the chamber is exquisitely attended by members along with the speaker and sergeant at arms and the main daily prayers, there will several of them, but the one i find special ask members to keep in mind the responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all. i invite the members of the youth parliament here today to look around the walls of the chamber where they will see the shield that commemorate the members of the house. each day during prayers, members

turned to the walls and face the shields, conscious of the sacrifices that were made. it acts as a reminder of what all can hold and also the attack on democracy. mr. speaker, what matters in this house is the quality of debate. debates are not mere democratic windowdressing or paying lip service to issues but have a profound impact, and speeches in this house can turn nice. the assistant dying bill was in this chamber this year and it attracted huge interest. the house overwhelmingly voted to reject the plan. however, the result of the vote was not a for a conclusion and many mines worse way through the course of the debate. do not underestimate the power of the word that are spoken in this chamber. it is in this tradition of debate and scrutiny that the members of the youth parliament today will make the most of the

opportunity and the powerful applicant for the young people they represent. i was about to suggest that another one of the long-standing tradition that we have in the house, to refrain from applauding during speeches. you have reminded members on various occasions, but what matters is that the young people here get to speak, and the more that i speak, the less time there is for them. so i conclude by wishing everyone well today. [applause] speaker: thank you. i'll call the shadow leader of the house of commons, chris brian. >> thank you. it is, for me, a complete delight to be standing here addressing the youth parliament because i was a member of parliament who move the notion that youth parliament be allowed to sit in this chamber, which was successful because you voted for it, and you voted against it.

>> [indiscernible] [applause] mr. speaker, the honorable gentleman is accurate in 2010 but he will be aware in 2015, i moved the motion to secure the unanimous backing of the house. >> there is more rejoicing in heaven when once in a repentant -- i accept your apology. seriously, i want to start by saying this. i think the single most important thing in politics, the one piece of advice i can give, is never let your ambitions be determined by other people. always campaign for what you believe in, always believe in what you campaign in. of course, those two things have to go together. i remember the debate